Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, these are problems. Harry suggests what may explain some of them, hat least. An 11 or ten year reign for Archelaus isn't that hard. One source may give the year of death and the other round it up to the next year.
But you suggest that the general picture that Josephus sets out of his own times should be dismissed because of this? If we get rid of Josephus, what do we use? The gospels?
That would certainly get rid of a lot of your problems if we did, but Matthew's star and wise men would still make no sense. That Mark and John have no nativity at all is a problem, that what was evidently a Roman head count in a Herodian client kingdom is a problem, That they live in Nazareth and have to go to an ancestral town to sign up is a problem. That Joseph takes his pregnant wife along makes no sense -other than the whole point is to wangle a Nazarene into Bethlehem. That Matthew has them living in Judea and intend to go back there is a problem. That Luke has no flight to Egypt but a speedy return to Nazareth is a problem. We don't get any dates or times, other than a rough date from Luke for the start of the ministry.
The nativities, Pneuma, are far more All over the map than Josephus, in historical consistency. If we do look for consistency, then Gamaliel's speech fits better with a 'First' Roman provincial census (and the revolt) than with Herod. And doesn't it make more sense that there was an earlier Theudas with Judas later (in the time of the Roman take -over) than a Judas Revolt in Herod's time (to make the census Herodian) and Theudas even earlier than that?
Maybe Harry or perhaps even myself would be willing to look at these dating problems you raise, but I have got to say that I'm more inclined to go to Josephus for a history of the times than to the gospels.
Did Luke write Matthew and Mark? We are talking about Luke here not the other two (however I did explain Matthews also) Luke is a historian and a far better one then Josephus, yet you discount Luke's account in favor of Josephus even though he (Josephus) is all over the map and according to German scholar Ethelbert Stauffer this is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census.
“The past fifty years of research on the work of Josephus have taught us to be severely critical of his method and presentation. Josephus had an ax to grind. His historical journalism was intended as a self-defense and self-aggrandizement. He wrote to glorify his people and to eulogize the Roman Emperor. He was an ardent sympathizer with the pro-Roman collaborationists among the Jews and an opponent of all the anti-Roman and anti-Herodian partisans of the Palestinian resistance movement. Crucial parts of Josephus’ historical works, moreover, were casually patched together from older sources of uneven value: consequently they were replete with gaps and contradictions, are muddled and misleading. This is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census. Of course, Josephus remains an invaluable source: but he is not to be read uncritically.”*
You should really look into Luke's accuracy concerning his historical content Trans he is very accurate and has been prove to be time and time again.
Think of the Pilate stone Trans and how at one time atheist and scholars doubted whether Pilate even existed or that he was a prefect.
Now your free to believe whoever you like but if you believe Josephus is a more accurate historian then Luke in the face of just the few discrepancies I gave (there's more) then I have to wonder if it is just your bias speaking.
Heck Trans you even believe that there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth (minus the supernatural stuff) so why is it so hard for you to believe Luke's account (minus any supernatural stuff) of when Jesus was born, If Luke was telling you about the birth of Caesar minus any supernatural stuff you would not have a problem with that.
I get it though being what you are (atheist/evolutionist) you cannot even allow a foothold in the door, even historical accuracy.
Did Luke write Matthew and Mark? We are talking about Luke here not the other two (however I did explain Matthews also) Luke is a historian and a far better one then Josephus, yet you discount Luke's account in favor of Josephus even though he (Josephus) is all over the map...
Perhaps you should go back over the thread and note how many times you have put forward Josephus as a trustworthy and reliable historian when he was supporting your argument but now, when Josephus works against you, he is 'all over he map' and not to be trusted.
I would say that Josephus was the greatest historian there ever was or ever will be, and it is the reason I chose the name Flavius.
Having said that, it would appear to me that his writings were compromised concerning Jesus. If such a cloud hangs over a small portion of such a great work, why not rip out the potion and the cloud that puts Josephus in doubt?
Did Luke write Matthew and Mark? We are talking about Luke here not the other two (however I did explain Matthews also) Luke is a historian and a far better one then Josephus, yet you discount Luke's account in favor of Josephus even though he (Josephus) is all over the map and according to German scholar Ethelbert Stauffer this is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census.
You should not ignore the contradictions between Matthew and Luke, not that Mark and John mention no nativity. That's shutting your eyes to the problems. I have explained to you the severe problems wuth Luke, yet you dismiss it and declare that he is better than Josephus. On what grounds? Ethelbert Stauffer? I have already explained how Luke himself identified the census with the revolt of Judas the Galilean and that makes more sense as a first Roman provincial tax than as a tax in the time of Herod. If you want to raise and problems that Stauffer mentions, you can do so, but don't just appeal to authority.
“The past fifty years of research on the work of Josephus have taught us to be severely critical of his method and presentation. Josephus had an ax to grind. His historical journalism was intended as a self-defense and self-aggrandizement. He wrote to glorify his people and to eulogize the Roman Emperor. He was an ardent sympathizer with the pro-Roman collaborationists among the Jews and an opponent of all the anti-Roman and anti-Herodian partisans of the Palestinian resistance movement. Crucial parts of Josephus’ historical works, moreover, were casually patched together from older sources of uneven value: consequently they were replete with gaps and contradictions, are muddled and misleading. This is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census. Of course, Josephus remains an invaluable source: but he is not to be read uncritically.”*
Of course we are aware of Josephus' agenda. That does not mean that his history is wrong.
Quote:
You should really look into Luke's accuracy concerning his historical content Trans he is very accurate and has been prove to be time and time again.
I have looked into it and have shown that that he better supports Josephus than a census in Herodian times. You just ignore this and pretend that I'm the one not looking.
Quote:
Think of the Pilate stone Trans and how at one time atheist and scholars doubted whether Pilate even existed or that he was a prefect.
I have never heard any doubts of Pilate as a governor of Judea, especially as Josephus and Philo both confirm this. The Pilate stone itself raised doubts about the Gospels as they call Pilate procurator. Though you pointed out a provincial governor could exercise both functions, the stone shows that he was acting as prefect, not procurator.It's easily explained, so i don't hold it against the gospels nor Tacitus, but it does nothing to validate the uncharacteristic Pilate of the gospels, not to throw any doubt on Josephus.
Quote:
Now your free to believe whoever you like but if you believe Josephus is a more accurate historian then Luke in the face of just the few discrepancies I gave (there's more) then I have to wonder if it is just your bias speaking.
You pointed up some errors in dating. That is no reason to throw out baby and bathwater. I am quite certain that, when you ignore the problems with the nativities, and try to wangle the census into Herod's time, is IS bias, on your part speaking. That doesn't matter. The way the evidence points matters. I can only say that historians don't seem to have a serious problem with Josephus, so I don't see why I should because you want to ditch him because a lot of the case for the time discrepancy (far from the only one) between the two nativities rests on Josephus.
Quote:
Heck Trans you even believe that there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth (minus the supernatural stuff) so why is it so hard for you to believe Luke's account (minus any supernatural stuff) of when Jesus was born, If Luke was telling you about the birth of Caesar minus any supernatural stuff you would not have a problem with that.
Because I find some worrying problems with the gospels if Jesus didn't exist. If it was made up by Christians, why create problems for themselves? Also Paul is such a dodgy customer, I am inclined to believe he wrote at least some of the letters, and especially toe ones mentioning Jesus' disciples - apparently to justify himself. And you don't get disciples of a man who never existed.
If it was not for that, I'd incline towards a totally mythical Jesus as the bulk of the gospels doesn't convince me at all.
Quote:
get it though being what you are (atheist/evolutionist) you cannot even allow a foothold in the door, even historical accuracy.
As I get it that you want to toss Josephus out because he doesn't suit your bias, so we are are quits on that, I think.
I would say that Josephus was the greatest historian there ever was or ever will be, and it is the reason I chose the name Flavius.
Having said that, it would appear to me that his writings were compromised concerning Jesus. If such a cloud hangs over a small portion of such a great work, why not rip out the potion and the cloud that puts Josephus in doubt?
Pneuma battled like mad to the reliability of the Flavian testament. The one bit of Josephus that is demonstrably spurious, at least in part. As Raffs says, Josephus is holy writ to Pneuma- when it suits him.
Pneuma battled like mad to the reliability of the Flavian testament. The one bit of Josephus that is demonstrably spurious, at least in part. As Raffs says, Josephus is holy writ to Pneuma- when it suits him.
Huh! that is either an outright lie or you are confusing me with someone else. Please show us all where I DID THIS
Huh! that is either an outright lie or you are confusing me with someone else. Please show us all where I DID THIS
You want me to rummage back through the endless posts to find it? Sorry, I don't have time. But I f you want to concede that the Flavian Testament is spurious i would be happy to withdraw the remark with apologies.
You should not ignore the contradictions between Matthew and Luke, not that Mark and John mention no nativity. That's shutting your eyes to the problems. I have explained to you the severe problems wuth Luke, yet you dismiss it and declare that he is better than Josephus. On what grounds? Ethelbert Stauffer? I have already explained how Luke himself identified the census with the revolt of Judas the Galilean and that makes more sense as a first Roman provincial tax than as a tax in the time of Herod. If you want to raise and problems that Stauffer mentions, you can do so, but don't just appeal to authority.
“The past fifty years of research on the work of Josephus have taught us to be severely critical of his method and presentation. Josephus had an ax to grind. His historical journalism was intended as a self-defense and self-aggrandizement. He wrote to glorify his people and to eulogize the Roman Emperor. He was an ardent sympathizer with the pro-Roman collaborationists among the Jews and an opponent of all the anti-Roman and anti-Herodian partisans of the Palestinian resistance movement. Crucial parts of Josephus’ historical works, moreover, were casually patched together from older sources of uneven value: consequently they were replete with gaps and contradictions, are muddled and misleading. This is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census. Of course, Josephus remains an invaluable source: but he is not to be read uncritically.”*
Of course we are aware of Josephus' agenda. That does not mean that his history is wrong.
I have looked into it and have shown that that he better supports Josephus than a census in Herodian times. You just ignore this and pretend that I'm the one not looking.
I have never heard any doubts of Pilate as a governor of Judea, especially as Josephus and Philo both confirm this. The Pilate stone itself raised doubts about the Gospels as they call Pilate procurator. Though you pointed out a provincial governor could exercise both functions, the stone shows that he was acting as prefect, not procurator.It's easily explained, so i don't hold it against the gospels nor Tacitus, but it does nothing to validate the uncharacteristic Pilate of the gospels, not to throw any doubt on Josephus.
You pointed up some errors in dating. That is no reason to throw out baby and bathwater. I am quite certain that, when you ignore the problems with the nativities, and try to wangle the census into Herod's time, is IS bias, on your part speaking. That doesn't matter. The way the evidence points matters. I can only say that historians don't seem to have a serious problem with Josephus, so I don't see why I should because you want to ditch him because a lot of the case for the time discrepancy (far from the only one) between the two nativities rests on Josephus.
Because I find some worrying problems with the gospels if Jesus didn't exist. If it was made up by Christians, why create problems for themselves? Also Paul is such a dodgy customer, I am inclined to believe he wrote at least some of the letters, and especially toe ones mentioning Jesus' disciples - apparently to justify himself. And you don't get disciples of a man who never existed.
If it was not for that, I'd incline towards a totally mythical Jesus as the bulk of the gospels doesn't convince me at all.
As I get it that you want to toss Josephus out because he doesn't suit your bias, so we are are quits on that, I think.
I did not just blow off your points, I addressed them in that link. Just because I find your reasoning to be flawed does not mean I did not address them.
You seem to think that if there are differences in what the gospels say that it debunks everything in the gospels, to use you own words " That is no reason to throw out baby and bathwater"
However Matthew, Mark and John do not write or pretend to be historian, Luke on the other hand write's just like one and is historically accurate in his descriptions of people, places and events.
Like I have said before Trans if there are historical errors in the gospels, if Matthew disagrees with Luke then Luke should be the one to listen to as he is the historian.
But you don't like that, its all or nothing with you which is a sure sign of a fundamental mind set.
Whatever it is, whatever Flavius said of Jesus is irrelevant, there is absolutely NOTHING THERE that a Christian needs, there is no reason why a Christian shouldn't admit the that there is a possibility that somebody added to Josephus because there is nothing of proof even if all people admit what was supposedly added to what Josephus says, it is niether here now there to the believer and it shouldn't matter to the believer, but what should matter is that we would let such a great work of art be put in a bad light from somethihg so trivial as if the Christian needs some kind of proof, or has some need to use Josephus as proof of Jesus.
Jesus does not stand or fall because of Josephus. We should amputate the sickness and toss it to the flames.
You want me to rummage back through the endless posts to find it? Sorry, I don't have time. But I f you want to concede that the Flavian Testament is spurious i would be happy to withdraw the remark with apologies.
I have always had my doubts about it so for to say I fought tooth and nail is a outright lie, or as I said you have me mixed up with someone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
